从上述引自文本的几个事件可以看出，曹操不仅是个忠实的汉朝皇帝支持者，还是个真正的保皇者。他虽身份低微，“年二十，举孝廉，为郎，除洛阳北部尉”，但他“有权谋，多机变”，胆大勇敢，有远见。他是我国历史上杰出的战略家。例如，“操见昭言语投机，便问以朝廷大事。昭曰：‘明公兴义兵以除暴乱，入朝辅佐天子，此五霸之功也。但诸将人殊意异，未必服从；今若留此，恐有不便。惟移驾幸许都为上策。然朝廷播越，新还京师，远近仰望，以冀一朝之安；今复徙驾，不厌众心。——夫行非常之事，乃有非常之功：
愿将军决计之。’操执昭手而笑曰：‘此吾之本志也。’……操奏曰：‘东都荒废久矣，不可修葺；更兼转运粮食艰辛。许都地近鲁阳，城郭宫室，钱粮民物，足可备用。臣敢请驾幸许都，惟陛下从之。’帝不敢不从；群臣皆惧操势，亦莫敢有异议。遂择日起驾。操引军护行，百官皆从。”从此，曹操“挟天子以令诸侯”，势力大增。
From the events quoted above from the text we can see Cao Cao is not only a loyal supporter of the Hanemperor but also a real loyalist. Although Cao Cao’s position is very humble—“At twenty， Cao receivedhis district’s recommendation for filial devotion and personal integrity， and this led to his initial appointmentto the palace. Later， he was given command of security in the northern half of the district where the capital，Luoyang， was located”， he is“a man with ingenious ideas for any situation， a regular storehouse of schemesand machinations”， bold and brave， very insightful. He is an outstanding strategist in Chinese history.
For instance，“Cao Cao admired the aptness of Dong Zhao’s replies and proceeded to ask him about thecondition of the royal house.‘My lord，’he answered，‘the royal army you command has saved the courtfrom chaos and rescued the Son of Heaven. For this you rank with the Five Protectors of antiquity， whosafeguarded the sovereigns of the Zhuo dynasty. In the present instance， however， we have many generalswith many ambitions； they may not always obey you. Therefore it might be more advantageous to movethe Emperor from Luoyang to Xuchang. On the other hand， the court is newly installed here in the formercapital after a period of shuttling about， and men near and far yearn for stability. Another move will be widelyresented. Still and all， extraordinary acts win extraordinary merit. The choice is yours’. Cao Cao took DongZhao’s hand and smiled.‘I really want to move the court，’he said... The next day， Cao Cao petitionedthe Emperor，‘Luoyang is ruined and cannot be restored. The grain shortage has caused severe hardship.
Xuchang， close to Luyang’s grain， has walls， buildings， riches， and resources more than sufficient for ourneeds. I propose removing there if it is acceptable to Your Majesty.’The Emperor could only agree， for noneof his officials dared oppose Cao Cao. On a chosen day Cao led the imperial escort， and the courtiers followedtheir sovereign to the new capital.”This is how“Cao Cao Moves the Emperor to Xuchang”. (Chapter 14)From then on Cao Cao controls the emperor and commands the lords， and extends his power rapidly.
曹操不仅是军事战略家而且是军事战术家。他在官渡之战大败袁绍，在我国古代战争史上树立了以少胜多、以弱胜强的光辉榜样。正是“势弱只因多算胜，兵强却为寡谋亡。”（第三十回）他乘胜追击，吞并了冀州、青州、幽州和并州。采用了郭嘉的意见，曹操计定了辽东。从而平定了北方。（第三十一至三十三回）
Cao Cao is not only a military strategist but also a military tactician. He has defeated Yuan Shao’s armyat the battle of Guandu and set a shining example of defeating a numerically superior and powerful enemywith a small and weak force in the military history of ancient China.“Instead： The weaker prevailed bycunning calculation； The stronger failed for want of strategy”(Chapter 30). He has triumphantly pursuedYuan’s troops in a favourable situation and devoured Jizhou， Qingzhou， Youzhou and Bingzhou. Havingadopted Guo Jia’s suggestion， Cao Cao has secured Liaodong. Consequently， the north is secured. (Chapter31—Chapter 33)
曹操也是个着名的政治家。他领了圣旨破贼，“不过百余日，招安到降兵三十余万、男女百余万口。操择精锐者，组成他的青州军，其余尽令归农。……操在兖州，招贤纳士。……自是曹操部下文有谋臣，武有猛将，威镇山东。”（第十回）曹操大败袁氏之后，“乃下令曰：‘河北居民遭兵革之难，尽免今年租赋。’一面写表申朝；操自领冀州牧。……乃令人遍访冀州贤士。”（第三十三回）“操将所得袁绍之兵，共五六十万，班师回许都。……复聚众谋士商议，欲南征刘表。荀罥曰：‘大军方北征而回，未可复动。且待半年，养精蓄锐，刘表、孙权可一鼓而下也。’操从之，遂分兵屯田，以候调用。”（第三十四回）曹操的“屯田制”产生了深远的影响，至今仍有影响。
Cao Cao is also a noted statesman. He has accepted the commission to suppress peasant uprisings ledby the Yellow Scarves.“In one hundred days Cao Cao had induced the surrender of over three hundredthousand troops and one million non-combatants. He picked the finest of the Yellow Scarves troops andorganized them into his Qingzhou army. The remainder he sent back to their farms. ... Back in Yanzhou，Cao Cao summoned worthy and capable men to build his administration. ... Thus Cao Cao， aided by wisecounselors and fierce fighters， made his prestige felt east of the pass.”(Chapter 10) After Cao Cao defeatedthe Yuan’s，“he forgave all taxes for the current year in areas affected by the fighting. Then， after informingEmperor Xian， he assumed the protectorship of Jizhou himself. ... Cao Cao ordered Jizhou scoured for menof worth and talent. (Chapter 33)“...then with Yuan Shao’s captured forces， which numbered some half amillion， Cao Cao withdrew to the capital at Xuchang... Once again Cao Cao assembled his council to discussa southern campaign against Liu Biao. Xun You was opposed.‘Our main force，’he argued，‘is not yetready for mobilization after the northern campaigns. If we wait half a year to recover our strength and nourishour mettle， Liu Biao and Sun Quan too will fall at the first roll of our drums.’Cao Cao accepted this adviceand assigned the soldiers to settle and reclaim wasteland until the next call to arms.”(Chapter 34) Cao Cao’ssystem of“having garrison troops or peasants open up wasteland and grow food grain”has exercised far-reaching influence， even up to now， still having influence.
曹操是三国时期魏国的奠基人。与任何创建者一样，曹操有雄才大略、多谋善断、智勇双全、知人善任。因此，他成功地统一了中原和北方，为三国的统一打下了基础。他慷慨大方地对待和放行关羽，不仅表现了他尊重人才，而且表明他心胸开阔、宽宏大度。他在官渡之战大败袁绍军队以后，“于图书中检出书信一束，皆许都及军中诸人与绍暗通之书。左右曰：‘可逐一点对姓名，收而杀之。’操曰：‘当绍之强，孤亦不能自保，况他人乎？’
遂命尽焚之，更不再问。”这不仅使那些内疚的人因此而感激他，而且保持了他自己队伍的和谐。（第三十回）这不也表明了他的宽宏大量和政治远见吗？他爱才如命，胜过亲子。例如，“又设祭祭典韦，操亲自哭而奠之，顾谓诸将曰：‘吾折长子、爱侄，俱无深痛；独号泣典韦也！’众皆感叹。”（第十六回）文本中有许多事例表明曹操具有一个成功的开创者所应有的良好品质。
Cao Cao is the founder of the State of Wei in the period of the Three Kingdoms. Just like any founder，Cao Cao is resourceful and decisive， a statesman of rare gifts and bold strategy. He has both wisdom andcourage. He knows his subordinates and makes good use of them. That is why he can succeed in uniting theCentral Plains with the northern part of the country， to lay the foundation for a re-united China. His generoustreatment and release of Guan Yu shows not only his respect for talented people but also his magnanimityand broadmindedness. After he has defeated Yuan Shao’s army at the battle of Guandu，“Among the officialpapers he found a packet of letters written by those in his capital who had secretly communicated with YuanShao. Some of his advisers urged Cao Cao to round up the unreliable elements and kill them. But Cao Caoreplied，‘When Yuan Shao was powerful， my own safety stood in doubt—not to speak of others.’He orderedthe letters burned and the matter dropped.”This not only makes the guilty ones appreciated him for it butalso preserves harmony in his own ranks. (Chapter 30) Doesn’t it also display his magnanimity and politicalinsight？ He loves talents above his own children. It can be said that he clings to talents for dear life. Forinstance，“Then he performed sacrifice for his fallen comrade， Dian Wei， personally leading the lamentationsand presenting the wine. At the ceremony he turned to his commanders and said，‘I have lost my eldest sonand my dear nephew. But the loss of Dian Wei hurts most.’The assembly was deeply moved.”(Chapter16) There are many examples in the text showing that Cao Cao has good qualities a successful founder shouldhave.
除具有上述刘备和孙权都有的良好素质外，曹操还有文学天赋，是个着名的文学家。例如，“宴长江曹操赋诗”，诗曰：“对酒当歌，人生几何：譬如朝露，去日苦多……山不厌高，水不厌深：周公吐哺，天下归心。”（第四十八回）“并州既定，操商议西击乌桓。”（第三十三回）当他返回时，路过碣石山，在那儿写了一组乐府诗，其中一首是《观沧海》。诗曰：“东临碣石，以观沧海。……秋风萧瑟，洪波涌起……。”伟大诗人毛泽东于1954年夏所作的《浪淘沙·北戴河》中所写的“往事越千年，魏武挥鞭，东临碣石有遗篇。萧瑟秋风今又是，换了人间。”就是指曹操在那儿写的诗。
Besides having the good qualities both Liu Bei and Sun Quan have， as mentioned above， Cao Cao hasa gift for literature as well. He is a well-known writer. For example，“Feasting on the Great River， Cao CaoSings an Ode”. It reads，“Here before us， wine and song！ / For man does not live long. / Like daybreak dew，/ His days are swiftly gone.... The mountaintop no height eschews； / The sea eschews no deep. / And the Dukeof Zhou spat out his meal / An empire’s trust to keep.”(Chapter 48)“With Bingzhou secured， Cao Caobegan planning to attack the Wuhuan to the west.”(Chapter 33) While on his way back， he passed by JieshiMountain， and there he wrote a few poems， one of which is entitled“A View of the Great Sea.”It reads，“Icome eastward to Jieshi / to scan the endless sea， ... The wind howls and sighs； / The billowy breakers leap，...”In the summer of 1954， great poet Mao Zedong wrote a poem entitled“BeiDai River to the tune ofWaves Sift Sand”in which the lines“Two thousand years ago just on this land， / The Emperor Weiwu，whip in hand， / Rode eastward to Jieshi， his poems for the autumnal sea remain； / Now the autumn wind sighsagain， / But the old world has changed its reign.”are referred to Cao Cao’s poems written there.
为什么曹操被称为“三绝”中的奸绝？一方面，曹操确实是个为达到政治目的不择手段的人。例如，“管粮官任峻部下仓官王罥入禀操曰：‘兵多粮少，当如之何？’操曰：
‘可将小斛散之，权且救一时之急。’罥曰：‘兵士倘怨，如何？’操曰：‘吾自有策。’
罥依命，以小斛分散。操暗使人各寨探听，无不嗟怨，皆言丞相欺众。操密召王罥入曰：
‘吾欲向汝借一物，以压众心，汝必勿吝。’罥曰：‘丞相欲用何物？”操曰：欲借汝头以示众耳。’罥大惊曰：‘某实无罪！’操曰：‘吾亦知汝无罪，但不杀汝，军必变矣。汝死后，汝妻子吾自养之，汝勿虑也。’罥再欲言时，操早呼刀斧手推出门外，一刀斩讫，悬头高竿，出榜晓示曰：‘王罥故行小斛，盗窃官粮，谨按军法。’于是众怨始解。”（第十七回）又如“二人至庄前下马，入见伯奢。奢曰：‘我闻朝廷遍行文书，捉汝甚急，汝父已避陈留去了。汝如何得至此？’操告以前事，曰：‘若非陈县令，已粉骨碎身矣。’伯奢拜陈宫曰：‘小侄若非使君，曹氏灭门矣。使君宽怀安坐，今晚便可下榻草舍。’说罢，即起身入内。良久乃出，谓陈宫曰：‘老夫家无好酒，容往西村沽一樽相待。’……操与宫坐久，忽闻庄后有磨刀之声。操曰：‘吕伯奢非吾至亲，此去可疑，当窃听之。’二人潜步入草堂后，但闻人语曰：‘缚而杀之，何如？’操曰：‘是矣！今若不先下手，必遭擒获。’遂与宫拔剑直入，不问男女，皆杀之，一连杀死八口。搜至厨下，却见缚一猪欲杀。宫曰：‘孟德心多，误杀好人矣！’急出庄上马而行。行不到二里，只见伯奢驴鞍前鞒悬酒二瓶，手携果菜而来，叫曰：‘贤侄与使君何故便去？’操曰：‘被罪之人，不敢久住。’伯奢曰：
‘吾已分付家人宰一猪相款，贤侄、使君何憎一宿？速请转骑。’操不顾，策马便行。行不数步，忽拔剑复回，叫伯奢曰：‘此来者何人？’伯奢回头看时，操挥剑砍伯奢于驴下。宫大惊曰：‘适才误耳，今何为也？’操曰：‘伯奢到家，见杀死多人，安肯干休？若率众来追，必遭其祸矣。’宫曰：‘知而故杀，大不义也！’操曰：‘宁教我负天下人，休教天下人负我。’”（第四回）还有很多事例表明曹操不仅诡诈多疑，滥杀无辜，而且奸诈阴险，常常玩弄种种阴谋诡计。
Why is it said that Cao Cao is the incomparable Machiavellian of“the Three Incomparable”？ Onthe one hand， Cao Cao is indeed a Machiavellian hero. For instance，“During the emergency GranaryOfficer Wang Hou， who served under Ren Jun， administrator of rations， petitioned Cao Cao：‘There is toolittle to feed so many. What shall we do？’‘Distribute short rations，’Cao Cao commanded him，‘totide us over.’‘And if they complain？’asked Wang Hou.‘I have provided for that，’Cao assuredhim. The officer gave out reduced rations as ordered. Meanwhile， Cao Cao sent his men around to thecamps. From them he learned that soldiers were accusing him of cheating them. Cao Cao then summonedWang Hou and said，‘You have something I would like to borrow to quiet the soldiers. I hope you willnot begrudge it.’‘What do I have，’Wang Hou answered，‘of use to Your Excellency？’‘Yourhead，’Cao replied，‘to show the men.’‘But I have committed no fault！’The officer cried in fright.‘Iknow that，’Cao said.‘I must act， or the army will revolt. I will see after your family personally， so haveno concern on their account.’Before Wang Hou could say more， the executioners were already pushinghim out. They cut off his head and hung it from a pole with a signboard reading，‘Wang Hou； DulyPunished by Military Law for Purposefully Assigning Short Rations and Stealing from the Granary.’Thismeasure improved the troops’ morale.”(Chapter 17) Let’s cite another instance，“...the two men rode tothe farmhouse， where they found Boshe，‘They say the court circulated a warrant for your arrest，’Boshesaid.‘They applied so much pressure that your father left the Chenliu area. How did you get here？’CaoCao related the recent events and continued，‘If not for the magistrate， I would have been reduced tomincemeat.’Boshe saluted Chen Gong and said，‘Your Honor， the Cao’s would have been exterminatedbut for you. Here you may relax and sleep in the back cottage.’Boshe rose and went inside. Eventually hereturned and said he was out of wine and had to go to the next village to buy some. Then he hopped on hisdonkey and was off. Cao Cao and Chen Gong sat a good while. Suddenly behind the farmhouse they heard thesound of knives being whetted.‘You know， Boshe is not a close relative.’Cao said，‘There is somethingsuspicious about his leaving. Let’s look into this.’The two men stole behind the cottage and overheardsomeone mumble，‘Let’s tie’m up an’ kill’m.’‘I thought so，’Cao Cao whispered.‘If we don’t strikefirst， we’ll be caught.’Cao Cao and Chen Gong entered at once and killed everyone， women and men， eightin all； only then did they see the trussed pig waiting to be slaughtered.‘You were too suspicious，’ChenGong said.‘We’ve killed good folk.’The two men hurried from the farm， but before they had ridden halfa mile they met their host on his donkey with two jars of wine suspended from the pommel and fruit andvegetables hanging from one hand.‘Dear nephew and honorable sir，’he cried，‘Why are you leaving sosuddenly？’‘Marked men can’t remain anywhere for long.’answered Cao Cao.‘But I told my familyto slaughter a pig for your dinner，’Boshe said earnestly.‘Don’t begrudge us the night， nephew， nor you，good sir. Turn back， I pray.’But Cao spurred his horse on. Then he turned and dashed back， his sworddrawn， calling to Boshe，‘Who’s coming over there？’As Boshe looked away Cao Cao cut him down， andhe fell from his donkey. Chen Gong was astounded.‘What happened at the farm was a mistake—but whythis？’‘Had he gotten home and seen them he would never have let it lay. He’d have brought a mob after usand we would’ve been done for.’‘But you murdered him knowing he was innocent—a great wrong.’ChenGong asserted.‘Better to wrong the world than have it wrong me！’Cao Cao retorted.”(Chapter 4) Thereare many other instances showing that Cao Cao is not only crafty and suspicious， indiscriminately slaughtersthe innocent people but also deceitful and designing， often resorts to all sorts of schemes and intrigues.
另一方面，众所周知，在罗贯中写作《三国演义》之前，三国的故事已在社会上流传了一千多年。在如此漫长的岁月里，不同朝代的历史学家、官员、哲学家和作家对三国时期的人和事有不同的观点和说法是很自然的。晋朝历史学家陈寿（233—297），亲身经历并亲眼见证了三国时期的历史，他在280年晋朝重新统一了魏、蜀、吴三国后开始写作《三国志》——官方的朝代记录，客观公正地记录了三国的人和事，正式承认魏的合法性，因为陈寿写作《三国志》时是晋朝的臣下，晋朝的合法性（司马氏接受末代曹氏魏帝于公元265年退位）取决于魏继承汉朝的合法性。在陈寿死后约一百三十年，东晋和南朝宋的学者官员裴松之（372—451）奉宋文帝之命，为《三国志》作注。裴补充对《三国志》的注释有历史价值，一些注释尽管不一定具有真实性，却是轶事趣闻，有声有色。可以说裴松之是第一个给《三国志》附上了一些虚构材料的人。宋文帝认可并高度赞扬裴的注释，于公元429年把《三国志》与注释合并为《三国志注》，并将其变成了三国时期的官方历史。这些注释比原着长了三倍；注释所引自的着作在唐朝之后已遗失，注释的价值就显得尤为宝贵了。我们发现注释中有一条重要的资料来源——习凿齿的《汉晋春秋》，否定魏继承的合法性。《汉晋春秋》这个标题就把魏从历朝排序中排除了。习凿齿被认为是第一位公开看待蜀汉为汉朝的合法后嗣的历史学家。他的着作把蜀汉统治年份确定为汉朝延伸到晋朝的第一位统治者时代。
蜀汉的第二位君王刘备之子刘禅于263年向魏军投降，晋朝的开创君王司马炎于265年接受末代魏帝曹奂退位。“晋绕过干扰的魏而汉晋相承”。为什么习凿齿要利用蜀汉统治的称号来证实刘玄德的合法性呢？因为习凿齿生活在东晋时期。东晋就像蜀汉，只局限在南方的一部分，受到北方中心地带敌朝消灭的威胁，这就间接地证实了东晋的合法性。高儒说罗贯中把《三国演义》的历史事实建立在《三国志》的基础上，就是指的裴松之注释的版本。但罗贯中没照其历史组织法——列传，而是选择了按年代顺序叙事。北宋时期的历史学家司马光于1066—1084年间写作了一部包含1362年（前403—959）的中国连续史《资治通鉴》。其中关于汉末—三国时期部分，主要是依据《三国志》和《后汉书》，可以被认为是《三国演义》版式的原型，正如《三国志》被认为是其资料来源的源头一样。司马光的朝代合法性观点，正如陈寿的观点，是“北方的”，而不是“南方的”，承认魏的合法性，与其他北宋历史学家如苏东坡和欧阳修相同。为了建构正统朝代系列，司马光采用了两个标准：领地控制（功业之实）和直系血统（以自上相授，受者为正）。他明确地排除刘备合法性的主张：“昭烈之于汉，虽云中山靖王之后，而族属疏远，不能纪其世数名位……是非难辨……使得绍汉氏之遗统也。”然而，全套着作过长并庞大，结果各种压缩版本出现，最有影响力的是南宋哲学家朱熹的《通鉴纲目》。它不仅给了一个比司马光的着作更为浓缩的三国历史记述，还为该时期带来完全不同的观念。司马光的着作遵循常规，支持曹操的魏国声称继汉的合法性，而朱熹则在他的《纲目》中改变了日历记载，以便和蜀汉的记载一致并设计了纲目，其纲目措词含有拥刘反曹的鉴定。朱熹不接受司马光的统一领地的控制为合法性的标准，而变成了如孔孟思想的文化连续性和理想君臣的道德完善等其他标准来界定合法性。这种标准的改变很自然地与当时南宋和北方晋朝的敌对相关，同时正迎合了民间长期拥刘反曹的思想趋向；并且还为《三国演义》的建构打下了思想基础。《资治通鉴》为罗贯中“陈叙百年”的着作《三国志通俗演义》提供了一本综合性的编年叙事。可以说《三国演义》就是《通鉴纲目》的小说版。小说书名中的“演义”二字是从《资治通鉴》中“不断发展”而来的“演”，从朱熹“纲目”中的“信息，道德意义”中得来的“义”；小说的有些章回目录就是追随朱熹对《资治通鉴》的修订。例如第八十回标题“曹丕废帝篡炎刘 汉王正位续大统”，详细叙述了220—221的事件，就是朱熹“纲目”“曹丕废献帝篡汉 汉中王成都称帝”的改写。小说中，“魏—蜀”矛盾是主要的，“吴”作平衡；“魏”与“吴”间的矛盾是次要的，“蜀”与“吴”的矛盾也是次要的。在历史上，“魏”与“吴”间的矛盾是主要的，尽管“蜀”在“魏”与“吴”间起平衡作用，“蜀”是次要的因素。把“蜀”作为道德中枢是一个重要的虚构变化，这是回应孔孟思想的文化连续性。在总结各种三国合法性的争论时，清朝时期的《四库全书》提要、目录索引大百科，采取求实的态度，重新提醒传统中国学者，要看透朝代宣传的各种各样的巧言妙语。“从作者处境的观点……所有情况都需要根据所处的时代而不是单一不变的标准来评价。”既然罗贯中生活在元末明初并在年轻时参加过起义军，那么他表现出一种鲜明的思想倾向：赞美刘备，贬抑曹操，反映他“仁政”的理想，是完全可以理解的。如果罗贯中加入的起义军的首领正是朱元璋的话，那与《三国演义》的关系就在于朱元璋试图把他自己塑造成他骄傲地比作的汉朝开国皇帝刘邦那样榜样式的帝王。《三国演义》可看成是歌颂就像是朱元璋完成了刘玄德和孔明未完成的使命而他在中国恢复了汉朝一样的统治。因此，罗贯中，“有志图王者”，更坚定地接受拥刘反曹的观念，把他未实现的理想倾注在刘备和孔明——圣君和贤相的人物身上。好在罗贯中还没把曹操涂绘得特黑。
On the other hand， it’s well known that the stories of the Three Kingdoms had been circulating in thesociety for over one thousand years before Luo Guanzhong started writing the novel. During such a longperiod of years， it’s very natural that various dynastic historians， officials， philosophers， and writers haddifferent viewpoints and versions on the events and people of the Three Kingdoms period. The Jin Dynastyhistorian Chen Shou (A. D.233-297)， having experienced and witnessed the history of the Three Kingdomsperiod， began to write The Annals of the Three Kingdoms (Sanguozhi)， the official dynastic records after A.D.
280， the year Jin had reunited the Three Kingdoms Wei， Shu and Wu. In the Annals he objectively andimpartially recorded the historical events and the leading figures of the age， formally acknowledged Wei’slegitimacy because he was a subject for the Jin when he wrote the records and Jin’s legitimacy (the Simareceived the abdication of the last Cao-Wei emperor in A.D. 265) depended on the legitimacy of Wei’ssuccession to Han. About 130 years after Chen Shou’s death， Pei Songzhi (A.D. 372-451)， a scholar-officialof both the Eastern Jin and Liu-Song dynasties， wrote notes on The Annals of the Three Kingdoms at thebehest of the Liu-Song emperor. Some of the notes with which Pei supplemented the Annals are of historicalvalue. Some are anecdotal and colorful though of uncertain authenticity. It might be said that Pei Songzhibecame the first to attach some fictional material to The Annals. The Liu-Song emperor accepted PeiSongzhi’s work with high praise， and in A.D. 429 an integrated text—The Annals combined with the notes—was established； this became the official history of the Three Kingdoms period. These notes created a textthree times longer than the original； and as they cite many works lost after the Tang dynasty， their value isinestimable. We can find that one of the notes’ key sources， Xi Zuochi’s The Han-Jin Spring and Autumn，denies the legitimacy of the Wei succession. The very title of this work excludes Wei from the great line ofdynasties. Xi Zuochi is considered the first historian to treat the Shu-Han Kingdom openly as the legitimateheir of Han. His work dates events by the Shu-Han reign years， which are presented as extensions of the Hanup to the first reign of the Jin. Shu-Han’s Second Ruler， Liu Shan， son of Liu Xuande， surrendered to the Weiarmy in A.D. 263. In A.D. 265 Sima Yan received the abdication of the last Wei emperor， Cao Huan.“Jinshould bypass the intervening Wei and take its succession from the Han.”Why did Xi Zuochi use Shu-Hanreign titles to affirm Liu Xuande’s legitimacy？ Because Xi Zuochi lived during the Eastern Jin， a dynastythat， like Shu-Han， was confined to one southern sector of the realm and threatened with extinction by anenemy dynasty occupying the northern heartland. This can indirectly affirm the Eastern Jin’s legitimacy.
The“historical facts”which Gao Ru says Luo Guanzhong based the Romance of the Three Kingdoms onrefers to Pei Songzhi’s annotated version of the Annals of the Three Kingdoms. But Luo does not follow theAnnals’ history method of organization—the biographical series. He chooses instead chronological narrative.
During the Northern Song， the historian Sima Guang， between the years 1066 and 1086， produced acontinuous history of China covering 1，362 years (403 B.C. to A.D. 959)， entitled General History for the Aidof Government， or Zizhi Tongjian (ZZTJ). The ZZTJ’s sections on the late Han-Three Kingdoms period， whilebased mainly on the Sanguozhi (SGZ) and the Hou Han Shu (HHS)， may be considered ancestor to the formatof the novel， just as the SGZ may be considered its ancestral source material. Sima Guang’s view of dynasticlegitimacy， like Chen Shou’s， is“northern”， not“southern”， acknowledging the Wei—a view otherNorthern Song history such as Su Dongpo and Ouyang Xiu share. To construct on orthodox line of dynasties，Sima Guang adopts two standards： territorial control and lineal descent. He explicitly excludes the claims tolegitimacy of Liu Bei：“As for the relation between the Zhao Lie Emperor and Han， despite his allegeddescent from Prince Jing of Zhongshan， his clan affiliation is quite remote... Indeed， it would be unthinkableto make him the heir to Han rule...”However， the complete work is lengthy and unwieldy， and as aconsequence condensed versions appeared， the most influential of which was the General History for the Aidof Government With a Network of Headings， by the Southern Song philosopher Zhu Xi. This book does notjust give a more abbreviated account of the history of the Three Kingdoms than Sima Guang’s work； it bringsa completely different concept to bear on the period. Whereas Sima Guang’s work follows convention bysupporting the claim of Cao Cao’s Wei Kingdom to be the legitimate successor to the Han Dynasty， Zhu Xihas changed the calendar entries in his Gangmu to accord with those of Shu-Han and devised headingswhose wording implies a pro-Liu Bei， anti-Cao Cao judgement. Zhu Xi did not accept Sima Guang’s criterionfor legitimacy， control of a unified territory. He turned instead to other criteria， such as cultural continuitywith the Zhou thinkers Confucius and Mencius， and the moral integrity of the ideal ruler and vassal， etc. fordefining legitimacy. This change of criterion was quite naturally connected with the contemporary rivalrybetween the Southern Song and the Jin Dynasty in the north， and at the same time was in tune with a long-held tendency among ordinary people to favor Liu Bei and regard Cao Cao as a villain. In addition， it laid theideological groundwork upon which the Romance of the Three Kingdoms was built. The ZZTJ furnished LuoGuanzhong with a comprehensive chronological account of the century he wanted to cover in his workHistorical Novel for Popular Reading Based on the Annals of the Three Kingdoms or Sanguozhi TongsuYanyi (SGZTS). It may be said that the Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a novelist version of the GeneralHistory to Aid of Government with a Network of Headings， or Zizhi Tongjian Gangmu. The word yanyi inthe novel’s title is to derive the yan“continuous development”from the ZZTJ and the yi“moralsignificance， message”from Zhu Xi’s Gangmu. Some of the chapter titles of the novel follow Zhu Xi’sredaction of the ZZTJ. For instance， the title of Chapter 80“Cao Pi Deposes the Emperor， Usurps the LiuThrone / The King of Hanzhong Assumes the Thrones， Continues the Han Line”， which recounts the eventsof A.D. 220-221， adapts Zhu Xi’s heading：“Cao Pi usurps the han after deposing Emperor Xian； The kingof Hanzhong proclaims himself emperor in Chengdu.”In the novel， the Wei-Shu conflict is primary， withWu controlling the balance； the conflict between Wei and Wu is secondary， and so is the conflict betweenShu and Wu. Historically， the conflict between Wei and Wu was primary， and Shu was the lesser factor，though it controlled the balance between Wei and Wu. Making Shu the moral pivot of the tale is an importantfictional change； it is a change that echoes the cultural continuity with the Zhou thinkers Confucius andMencius. In summarizing the various Three Kingdoms legitimacy debates the deive notice of the SikuOuanshu， the great bibliographical encyclopedia of the Qing period， takes a matter-of-fact attitude that is arefreshing reminder of the ability of traditional Chinese scholars to see through the categories and artifices ofdynastic propaganda.“From the viewpoint of the author’s circumstances... All these positions need to beevaluated according to the age and not measured by a single inflexible standard.”Since Luo Guanzhonglived in the years of the late Yuan-early Ming and joined the uprising army when he was young， it’s quiteunderstandable that he displays his clear-cut inclination to extol Liu Bei and disparage Cao Cao， whichreflects his ideal of“the benevolence government”. If Luo joinded the uprising army whose leader was justZhu Yuanzhang， then the connection to the novel might lie in Zhu Yuanzhang’s attempt to portray himself asan emperor after the model of Liu Bang， to whom he proudly compared himself. The Romance of the ThreeKingdoms could be seen as celebrating the restoration of Han-like rule in China， as if perhaps ZhuYuanzhang had fulfilled the mission that Liu Xuande and Kongming had left unfinished. Thus， LuoGuanzhong， who“strove for kingly government”， could accept all the more firmly the legistimate of a pro-Liu， anti-Cao view and pour his unrealized ideals into the figures of Liu Bei and Kongming， the sagelysovereign and the able minister. Luckily Luo Guanzhong has not painted Cao Cao particularly black.